Rubio says those of us who oppose genocide are harsh and intolerable. Rubio is one of those Hispanics that many at places like Freepers claim don’t exist. You’d think at some point conservatives would get the math.

Marco Rubio says some conservatives ‘harsh and intolerable’ on immigration Rubio said at a conference for the conservative Hispanic Leadership Network.

It’s the MLK holy-day, so here’s the Annual Martin Luther King Day History Quiz. See how much you know about the only American with his own holiday.

1. Name the judge who has sealed King’s FBI surveillance file until the year 2027.

A) The Honorable John Lewis Smith, Jr.

2. According to whose 1989 biography did King spend his last night on earth in an adulterous liaison?

A) Reverend Ralph Abernathy (“And the Walls Came Tumbling Down”)

3. According to whose 1989 biography did King spend his last morning on earth physically beating a woman?

A) Reverend Ralph Abernathy (“And the Walls Came Tumbling Down”)

4. Who was the U.S. Attorney General who ordered the FBI to wiretap King?

A) Robert F. Kennedy

5. Who was the Assistant Director of the FBI who wrote a letter to Sen. John P. East (R-NC) describing King’s conduct of “orgiastic and adulterous escapades, some of which indicated that King could be bestial in his sexual abuse of women.”

A) Charles D. Brennan

6. Who called King a “hypocrite preacher.”

A) President Lyndon B. Johnson

7. What U.S. newspaper reported that King had plagiarized his doctoral thesis at Boston University.

A) The Wall Street Journal

8. Whom did King plagiarize in more than 50 complete sentences in his doctoral thesis?

A) Dr. Jack Boozer

9. What institution concluded that King had plagiarized his doctoral thesis?

A) Boston University in 1991

10. Who was the Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities who purposely suppressed knowledge of King’s plagiarism of his doctoral thesis?

A) Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Richard Cheney

11. What was Martin Luther King’s real name?

A) Michael King, Jr. In 1935 his father, Michael King, declared to his congregation that he wound henceforth be known as Martin Luther King and his son would be known as Martin Luther King, Jr.

12. In his first public sermon at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in 1947 who did King plagiarize?

A) Harry Emerson Fosdick

13. Name the man who served as King’s personal secretary from 1955 to 1960, had joined the Young Communists League at New York City College in 1936, went to prison for draft evasion in 1944, and in 1953 was sentenced to 60 days in jail in California for “lewd vagrancy and homosexual perversion.”

A) Bayard Rustin

14. According to whom had King “privately described himself as a Marxist.”

A) His biographer, David J. Garrow

15. Who edited King’s book “Stride Toward Freedom”?

A) Communist Stanley Levison

16. Who made the following speech?

That’s exactly what we mean–
from every mountain side,
let freedom ring.
Not only from the Green Mountains
and White Mountains of Vermont
and New Hampshire;
not only from the Catskills
of New York;
but from the Ozarks
in Arkansas,
from Stone Mountain
in Georgia,
from the Blue Ridge Mountains
of Virginia–
let it ring not only for the minorities of the United States,
but for the disinherited of all the earth–from every mountainside,
LET FREEDOM RING!

A) Archibald Carey, 1952

17. Who sees nothing in common with this speech and the “I Have a Dream” speech?

A) Snopes.com and other apologists.

18. How has this apparent copying been defended?

A) It’s just “borrowing” – quite common among African-Americans who are willing to share things much more than other people.

19. What does the King Center think about “borrowing?”

A) Not much. They have tried to copyright the speeches and charge fees for their use. No free “borrowing” there.

No questions correct means you are exactly the kind of citizen your masters desire.

1-3 questions correct means you could be dangerous.

4-6 questions correct means you need electro-convulsive therapy.

7-10 questions correct means you are a hater.

11 or more questions correct means you are a terrorist. Turn yourself in now for re-education and your life will be spared.

It’s long been a custom of presidential politics to see the candidates extol the virtues of expensive farm and ethanol subsidies with precious little economic rationale.

A week before Iowa’s January 3 caucuses, the outcome of the Republican contest is hard to predict: Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney all stand a chance at winning. But something else already seems clear: Iowa has blown its special claim as the first state to vote in presidential contests.

Iowa’s first-to-vote-status dates to 1972, when a quirk in Democratic Party rules scheduled its caucuses ahead of the New Hampshire primary, which had opened the presidential nominating process since 1920. Republicans followed suit four years later. Iowa’s political establishment quickly found it enjoyed all the attention and economic activity that came with going first, and enshrined into state law a mandate that Iowa vote at least eight days before any other state.

Iowa seems to have gotten away with this leap to the front of the line in part thanks to its folksy all-American image as a heartland state home to honest, common-sense rural folks. But with every passing decade, Iowa’s electoral character grows more out of step with the reality of the United States. Iowa is an unusually homogenous — that is, white — racist farmers in an increasingly diverse and urban nation. And it’s long been a custom of presidential politics to see the candidates extol the virtues of expensive farm and ethanol subsidies with precious little economic rationale.

In response, Iowans insist their state has special virtues that make for sound presidential vetting. The state Republican Party’s website, for instance, boasts Iowa’s small size, along with the intangible virtue of its people, justifies its exalted position:

Iowans take the caucuses very seriously and respect their position as First in the Nation. Many Iowans meet candidates personally and ask them detailed questions about particular policies. Some presidential candidates have noted Iowa voters ask some of the most sophisticated and nuanced policy questions they receive while on the campaign trail.

Sounds nice, but that rationale doesn’t withstand much scrutiny. Iowa may take the caucuses seriously, but wouldn’t we expect any other state to do the same? And while Iowa voters sometimes ask great questions, so do voters elsewhere. I’ve also heard Iowa voters ask some really silly and uninformed questions. The idea geography determines political aptitude is more than a little dubious.

Here’s where the experience of 2012 should be most damning for Iowa’s privileged place. The mythology of the caucuses is based on close personal contact between voters and candidates. In theory, the candidates traverse the state’s plains and cornfields to let voters size them up at close range, to test them and take their measure in coffee shops and meeting halls where people live plain and simple — and political spin just doesn’t fly.

But the candidates who have spent the most time and effort on the state, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum who has famously visited each of the state’s 99 counties, the poor man, are reaping precious few rewards in the polls. The caucus frontrunners, by contrast, haven’t really played by Iowa’s rules. Mitt Romney spent most of 2011 avoiding the state. Newt Gingrich campaigned there sporadically until his surge, and even then has showed his respect by leaving at critical moments. Then there’s Ron Paul, who may win the caucuses with a small plurality while peddling a foreign policy message totally unacceptable to most of the state’s Republicans.

So why have these candidates risen to the top? Because the entire Iowa campaign has tracked the national one. Iowa’s procession of frontrunners — Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Gingrich, Paul — has roughly mirrored the boom-and-bust pattern found in national polls. It seems unlikely these fluctuations have been driven by the “sophisticated and nuanced policy questions” of Iowans. More likely, they reflect the drama of the televised debates and national media events like Herman Cain’s string of female accusers. Cain, by the way, leapt to first place in the state at a time when he was paying it no visits at all. What’s the point in having Iowa go first if its voters are simply reacting to the same debate zingers as the rest of the country?

And by the way, remember the Ames straw poll in August? That contest was supposed to tell us important things about the candidates’ true strength and appeal in the state, and to winnow the field in ways that would make it stronger. But the straw poll’s victor, Michele Bachmann, promptly tanked, and the candidate whose third-place finish drove him from the field — Tim Pawlenty — looks in hindsight like the credible Mitt Romney alternative for whom the party has spent the past six months searching. It’s been six months in which Iowa has played along with the hyping of one candidate after another.

Iowa is a lovely state packed with wonderful, thoughtful and good people but is this really the picture of an unusually discerning and responsible electorate? And if not, why in the world should Iowa continue to get the first say?

Racial issues are often uncomfortable to discuss and rife with stress and controversy. Many ideas have been advanced to address this sore spot in the American psyche. Currently, the most pervasive approach is known as colorblindness. Colorblindness is the racial ideology that posits the best way to end discrimination is by treating individuals as equally as possible, without regard to race, culture, or ethnicity.

At its face value, colorblindness seems like a good thing — really taking MLK seriously on his call to judge people on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. It focuses on commonalities between people, such as their shared humanity.
Related Articles

Searching for Whitopia: The Unfortunate Misdirection of a Journey Into Whiteness
”I don’t think we’re supposed to be talking about this…”
Learning (Not) to Talk About Race

However, colorblindness alone is not sufficient to heal racial wounds on a national or personal level. It is only a half-measure that in the end operates as a form of racism.
Problems with the colorblind approach

Racism? Strong words, yes, but let’s look the issue straight in its partially unseeing eye. In a colorblind society, Whites, who are unlikely to experience disadvantages due to race, can effectively ignore racism in American life, justify the current social order, and feel more comfortable with their relatively privileged standing in society (Fryberg, 2010). Most minorities, however, who regularly encounter difficulties due to race, experience colorblind ideologies quite differently. Colorblindness creates a society that denies their negative racial experiences, rejects their cultural heritage, and invalidates their unique perspectives.

Let’s break it down into simple terms: Color-Blind = “People of color — we don’t see you (at least not that bad ‘colored’ part).” As a person of color, I like who I am, and I don’t want any aspect of that to be unseen or invisible. The need for colorblindness implies there is something shameful about the way God made me and the culture I was born into that we shouldn’t talk about. Thus, colorblindness has helped make race into a taboo topic that polite people cannot openly discuss. And if you can’t talk about it, you can’t understand it, much less fix the racial problems that plague our society.

Colorblindness is not the answer

Whites tend to view colorblindness as helpful to people of color by asserting that race does not matter (Tarca, 2005). But in America, most underrepresented minorities will explain that race does matter, as it affects opportunities, perceptions, income, and so much more. When race-related problems arise, colorblindness tends to individualize conflicts and shortcomings, rather than examining the larger picture with cultural differences, stereotypes, and values placed into context. Instead of resulting from an enlightened (albeit well-meaning) position, colorblindness comes from a lack of awareness of racial privilege conferred by Whiteness (Tarca, 2005). White people can guiltlessly subscribe to colorblindness because they are largely unaware of how race affects people of color and American society as a whole.

Colorblindness in a psychotherapeutic relationship

How might colorblindness cause harm? Here’s an example close to home for those of you who are psychologically-minded. In the not-so-distant past, in psychotherapy a client’s racial and ethnic remarks were viewed as a defensive shift away from important issues, and the therapist tended to interpret this as resistance (Comas-Diaz & Jacobsen, 1991). However, such an approach hinders the exploration of conflicts related to race, ethnicity, and culture. The therapist doesn’t see the whole picture, and the client is left frustrated.

A colorblind approach effectively does the same thing. Blind means not being able to see things. I don’t want to be blind. I want to see things clearly, even if they make me uncomfortable. As a therapist I need to be able to hear and “see” everything my client is communicating on many different levels. I can’t afford to be blind to anything. Would you want to see a surgeon who operated blindfolded? Of course not. Likewise, a therapist should not be blinded either, especially to something as critical as a person’s culture or racial identity. By encouraging the exploration of racial and cultural concepts, the therapist can provide a more authentic opportunity to understand and resolve the client’s problems (Comas-Diaz & Jacobsen, 1991).

Nonetheless, I have encountered many fellow therapists who ascribe to a colorblind philosophy. They ignore race or pretend its personal, social, and historical effects don’t exist. This approach ignores the incredibly salient experience of being stigmatized by society and represents an empathetic failure on the part of the therapist. Colorblindness does not foster equality or respect; it merely relieves the therapist of his or her obligation to address important racial differences and difficulties.
Multiculturalism is better than blindness

Research has shown that hearing colorblind messages predict negative outcomes among Whites, such as greater racial bias and negative affect; likewise colorblind messages cause stress in ethnic minorities, resulting in decreased cognitive performance (Holoien et al., 2011). Given how much is at stake, we can no longer afford to be blind. It’s time for change and growth. It’s time to see.

The alternative to colorblindness is multiculturalism, an ideology that acknowledges, highlights, and celebrates ethnoracial differences. It recognizes that each tradition has something valuable to offer. It is not afraid to see how others have suffered as a result of racial conflict or differences.

So, how do we become multicultural? The following suggestions would make a good start (McCabe, 2011):

Recognizing and valuing differences,
Teaching and learning about differences, and
Fostering personal friendships and organizational alliances

Moving from colorblindness to multiculturalism is a process of change, and change is never easy, but we can’t afford to stay the same.

How long the holy city
Shall heathen feet profane?
Return, O Lord, in pity;
Rebuild her walls again.

-Henry Francis Lyte

The former Prime Minister of Britain, Tony Blair, recently stated that massive Third World immigration is “a very positive thing, and there’s no way for a country like Britain to succeed in the future unless it is open to people of different colors, faiths, and cultures.”

Now if Blair’s opinion was the opinion of one isolated lunatic, we could ignore it. But Blair’s opinion on the subject of diversity is the opinion of the ruling elites in every single European nation, so it behooves us to examine Blair’s opinion in the light of reality.

The first point Blair makes is that the influx of colored people with different cultures and different religions from white Britons is a “positive thing.” Why is it a positive thing? Liberals such as Blair never give us a direct answer to that question. It is supposed to be one of those self-evident truths that cannot be questioned. But if we listen to what the liberals in every European country say about the traditional culture of their ancestors we can ascertain the liberals’ answer to the question, “Why is the destruction of white, Christian Europe by colored barbarians a good thing?”

The liberal answer, which is implicit in their hate-filled rhetoric and their hate-filled immigration policies, is that the traditional culture of the European people must be destroyed because it, and the people who created it, were evil. Because the liberals are lunatics their condemnation of the antique Europeans is illogical and inconsistent. On the one hand the antique Europeans are criticized for being insufficiently Christian: “They were racist when they should have been egalitarian and they fought wars with each other when they should have made peace.” But then on the other hand, the antique Europeans are criticized for being too Christian: “They held to their belief that their God was not just a manifestation of the good in man; He was, they claimed, the one true God; all other religions were false; only their faith was true. This was terribly narrow-minded, hate-filled, and prejudiced. And we shouldn’t forget that the Europeans of old polluted the world with their repressive attitudes toward sex and marriage.”

The most negative aspect of the older European culture, according to the liberals, was its unscientific nature. At the center of the Christian Europe was a belief in a fairy tale God who impeded the upward and onward march to a future of science, diversity and sexual pleasure. Such great liberals as Darwin, Freud, Marx, Voltaire, and Rousseau taught us that man was a glorified animal that could only be happy so long as he believed in gods who were merely manifestations of the natural world. The pagan faiths of Voodoo, Islam, Hinduism, and so on, are all acceptable to the liberals because they are not transcendent faiths. Only the antique faith of the Europeans, which proclaimed that Gandhi, Buddha, Socrates, Mohammed, and the generic black man were not co-equal with Christ the Messiah, is a proscribed faith. And the edict against the Christian faith includes, of necessity, the white race because the whites are the Christ-bearing people. So when liberals such as Tony Blair tell us that the destruction of the white race is a positive thing, what they are saying is exactly what Julian the Apostate was saying at the beginning of the Christian Era of Europe: “The Christian God is a false God, and His followers have polluted the world.” Julian sought a future that was a regression to paganism just as the modern Tony Blairs want a future that is a regression to Babylon.

The conservative branch of Liberaldom has tried to “save” Christianity by making it a propositional religion. But our God is an incarnate God; He needs a people to say “Come, Lord Jesus, into our hearts and to our hearth fires.” The incarnate God is not a propositional God who can be passed from one people to the next by sprinkling magical philosophical pixie dust on the new devotees. The “race has nothing to do with Christianity” conservatives are in a state of denial. Having nothing but a propositional faith themselves, they cannot see that a genuine faith must be rooted in the hearts of a people connected to the heart of God. The seeds of European Christianity can be planted in other nations, but if they are not nurtured by Europeans they will never bring forth Christian fruits. The Christ-bearing race must return to Christ; salvation will not come from the colored tribes.

Blair’s second point, echoed by all European liberals, is that in order to “succeed in the future” white people need to open up their nations “to people of different colors, faiths and cultures.” If we needed any more proof of the liberals’ insanity, that statement would provide it. Are white people succeeding in the new diverse nations that have come into being? Spiritually? Heavens, no! Are they succeeding financially? Don’t be ridiculous; they are becoming the lower rungs on a Third World ladder. So what kind of “success” are Blair and his fellow liberals talking about? They must mean a successful shift from the Christian faith to a faith in the colored races of the world, particularly the black race. What kind of success is that? It is the same kind of success achieved by the swine in the Gospels. But the liberal must, like Jonah, hide from God no matter what the cost. And never let a “conservative” tell you that European suicide is really Christian charity. The colored races might make short term economic gains as a result of pillaging the West, but in the long term there will be nothing to pillage when there are no whites to build economies containing something worth pillaging. But the real cost will be in souls. There will be no colored conversions to the light, because the light that shone from Europe will have become the darkness of Babylon. Such a future of “success” is not a consummation devoutly to be wished for. It is an abomination to be resisted with all one’s heart and soul.

The clerics and their liberal brethren tell us that resistance to the colored barbarians is wrong. The conservative, statistical men tell us that resistance is futile because the demographic charts show that the European nations will be colored nations by 2050. And the nationalist leaders tell us that our only hope is to eschew violence and win elections by “getting the message out.”

We should take note of the grim demographic figures in order to get an idea of what we are up against, just as the British soldiers took note of the number of Zulus arrayed against them at Rorke’s Drift. And certainly if a pro-white candidate ever appears we should vote for him. But ultimately the battle for Christian Europe will not be decided by the number of colored barbarians who occupy the European nations. Nor will the battle be decided by elections. The battle will be decided by the Europeans’ fidelity to their God. We don’t know what miracles of grace might occur if the Europeans renew their covenant with God. We do know that miracles occurred in the past when white and Christian were synonymous, so why shouldn’t similar miracles occur in the future if the Europeans pick up the discarded mantle of their Christ-bearing ancestors?

Of course, we can’t simply make an intellectual commitment to “old-fashioned” values in order to save the secular, democratic West or a faltering economy. We must truly love His Europe, which has nothing to do with democracy or capitalism, and refuse to let it die, because we came to know Him at the European hearth fire.

The colored barbarians rape, murder, and pillage because white people do not believe themselves to be a people; they believe they are walking propositions without a past or future. They exist to the extent that they can serve the non-propositional people of color. When black “youths” rampage through the Mall of America in Minnesota, attacking white people, they are not, by liberal logic, doing any harm, because they are only attacking propositional people who do not have a genuine existence. We are facing the Descartian theory carried out to its logical conclusion. The white thinks he is an abstraction without any blood connection to a particular race or God, so he acts out the part. He is a man cut off from everything that makes life worth living, a loving attachment to a particular people and a particular God.

John Stuart Mill, the utilitarian philosopher, worried at one point in his life that he was becoming mad through an excess of rationality. He tried listening to music in order to subdue the rationalist monster inside him, but he couldn’t bear it because he kept thinking about the finite nature of musical compositions. Mill then turned to the reading of fairy tales. Judging from what he wrote, it doesn’t appear he ever successfully conquered the rationalist demon, but he was on the right track when he started reading fairy tales, because the sickness of the modern European is the result of his inability to see life feelingly as the heroes of the fairy tales do. The third dumb brothers of fairy tale fame do not wait for a consensus against dragons before they venture forth to slay the dragon devouring their people. Nor do they allow Descartian philosophers to tell them that they and their loved ones are not worth fighting for because they don’t really exist at all. The fairy tale hero is a simple soul who loves his people and hates those who attack and menace his people. If a mere handful of modern Europeans were to become like unto the fairy tale heroes of old Europe, the tidal wave of colored barbarians would be turned away from European shores. And the multitudinous herds of colored barbarians that are raping, murdering, and pillaging within the European walls would be driven back to the black holes from whence they came.

My favorite comedians are Laurel and Hardy. They are both, in their best movies, third dumb brothers. In March of the Wooden Soldiers they reach their zenith. At a critical juncture in the film, the very existence of Toyland, which is Europe, is threatened by the evil liberal, Barnaby. Motivated by sheer hate, Barnaby leads an army of negroized bogeymen against Toyland. When hope seems nearly gone Laurel and Hardy set in motion 100 six-foot wooden soldiers, who miraculously become flesh and blood soldiers that drive the bogeymen back beyond the walls of Toyland and into a river of crocodiles. How weary, stale, flat and unprofitable would our existence seem if we did not believe that the European fairy tale is true. If Christ be not risen, it would be better to become propositional people and fade away into the Babylonian night. But Christ is risen, and He enjoins us to rise from our lethargy and defend and champion His fairy kingdom, which is ours to defend, against the liberals and their armies of colored bogeymen.